Starting recent:
"Are aces LGBT" is a question/debate that is mostly useless and doesn't get anywhere, and is especially not going to get anywhere here.
I agree with this as both sides of this discussion seem pretty sure on their opinions. I also appreciate the genuine support for Ari in the latter half of the post! Just a shame that he's aromantic and you led with this:
On another note: I can only speak for myself but I hate the split attraction model and think it's incredibly homophobic in that it allows people to rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around their sexuality by trying to form a distinct line between romantic and sexual that does not exist.
- Many things can be used to "rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around [their] sexuality". For example, there are situations in which gay individuals wrongly decide they are trans instead and change their minds later. This does not make the thing itself homophobic- it may however indicate that the user, using it incorrectly, themselves holds rooted homophobic beliefs. That's an issue that isn't caused by the split attraction model, and I am quite sure it would not be solved by somehow abolishing it.
- Calling yourself homoromantic + asexual or whatever is an awful way of rationalising away being gay, because... It's still gay. Unless everyone using these terms is unbelievably dumb I think they'd have noticed that.
- Stating that "a distinct line between romantic and sexual [...] does not exist", to me, feels extremely dismissive of the fact that your experiences simply won't line up with those of every other human being. The only thing close to proof you provide here for this claim is the implication that you, yourself, have aligning sexual and romantic attraction. My counterpoint is simple- some other people don't, and asking "why" will probably lead you to the same answer as "why are people gay". I'm really not a fan of this take, and its resemblance to a certain take regarding gender and sex is unsettling. Edit as this has been repeatedly misconstrued: no, I'm not equating the severity of different kinds of bigotry here- I'm equating the style of bigotry (denying the existence of differing identities purely because you haven't experienced them).
Now for the crux of the conversation. Just so Crux doesn't say I didn't read what he said or something (he'll find another way to be dismissive, I'm sure), I'll start with the post he linked above.
There is no coherent distinction between sexual/romantic/platonic attraction or connection. Each of us has a different understanding of each of those terms as it relates not only to us generally, but also to specific relationships that we have. For instance, when does a particularly close platonic relationship become romantic? Each individual will have a different bar/line/conception as the concepts are, themselves, vague. Attempts to delineate certain points or differences between the two will always fail. The same is true when it comes to distinctions between the other “kinds” of relationship. You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them by proponents of the split attraction model: queerplatonic (what is the difference between this and friends with benefits? If the answer is closeness then that is arbitrary between different relationships and how individuals define them), squishes (distinction from crushes and other terms is again only arbitrary and individual), etc. Human relationships are complicated and messy, and such a blunt tool of categorisation is both conceptually useless and often harmful to people who use them. Identity is not just how you feel at a particular moment, but also a set of limits that you are setting on yourself consciously or not. As a model in general, therefore, the split attraction model makes no sense at a fundamental level, and perhaps is even harmful to those who use it.
In this paragraph, you definitely do hit one nail on its head- it's extremely hard to draw a clear line between romantic and platonic relationships. However, despite your claim at the start, you don't even attempt to prove that the same is true for sexual and romantic relationships. You simply state that "You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them" and yet upon doing so, I still see the quite distinct separation of
the performance of sexual acts. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this but it seems quite clear-cut in all honesty. Sure, a sexual relationship will typically contain romantic aspects, but a purely romantic relationship will not contain sexual aspects.
Further, an attempt at distinguishing between different modes of same gender attraction as xromantic, xsexual, xplatonic, etc. is also homophobic. It promotes an understanding of homosexual, bisexual etc. attraction as purely sexual, and lacking any of the apparently more nuanced qualities of definition these terms provide. It should come as no surprise that this is exactly the rhetoric that has been, and continues to be, levied against LGBT people to this day. That they are purely sexual deviants, and that nothing wholesome or true or virtuous can stem from their relationships. Attempting to define same gender attraction in this way, especially given its conceptual and ideological incoherence, perpetuates these same discriminatory attitudes. Especially given that the language is inaccessible and astonishingly esoteric. Does the language make sense for some people individually in their own conceptions of how they view themselves? Arguably, sometimes. But given its ideological incoherence and its effects on LGBT people as a whole, it should probably be put aside.
This is a very good point- there is definitely a massive amount of rhetoric based on the idea that gay, and other LGBT, individuals are sexual deviants. Once again, this is by no fault of the language of the split attraction model, which in fact doesn't imply this of homo/bisexual individuals at all. To suggest this would be to suggest that people labeled as heterosexual are not also heteroromantic, which is quite clearly absurd. The xromantic label is simply left unsaid as, for most people, their sexual attraction aligns with their romantic attraction and can be inferred. Its use is intended for those who don't fit this mold. When it comes down to it, if homophobes want to misunderstand some words to make us look bad, they'll do it no matter what we say- we shouldn't make hopeless concessions for them.
Why, then, is the split attraction model dangerous? It encourages young, confused, and often vulnerable members of the LGBT community to identify with terms that appeal to them at that particular point, rather than interrogate what they are actually feeling. The fact that I had a discussion today with members of the LGBT community who thought that someone who identified as “heteroromantic homosexual” was valid and should be taken as such is abhorrent to me. The absurdity of the split attraction model is, I think, most evident in these cases. Someone who is struggling with their identity, facing the forces of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality, deserves our help, not just a blind claim that they are “valid”. Regularly, we are wrong. I think most LGBT people have this experience. The proliferation of micro-identities and the split attraction model actively prevent young LGBT people from finding themselves as they cling to labels that are actually incoherent and meaningless. It may sound like this is their choice, or essentially insignificant to them. Maybe they will find their identities in the future? But it is actually a significant site of trauma. When a young lesbian is compelled by compulsory heterosexuality to claim she is actually bisexual, the experiences that follow from that often follow her for life. It is no surprise or coincidence that the rhetoric of “heteroromantic homosexual” etc. are exactly the rhetoric used to create the ideal homosexual of conservatives and the Catholic church (just without the fancy terms provided by the split attraction model). If you think that this is acceptable, then you don’t actually care about gay people, you care about liberalism.
Time for me to (possibly) be a bit controversial with the inclu crowd- "heteroromantic homosexual" is a misuse of the split attraction system, and I totally agree that such a thing being considered as certainly valid and not as a possible indicator of internalised homophobia (considering it too taboo or scary to have a committed homosexual relationship while not feeling the same towards a heterosexual one) is an issue. I haven't actually met or talked with anyone who identifies as such so I may be missing understanding- in which case, anyone can feel free to message me. To me, the merit of the split attraction system is in its ability to signify whether an individual is asexual, aromantic, or both, as pairing those identities with others (e.g. homoromantic asexual or bisexual aromantic) is not incongruent. Overall, I almost entirely agree with this paragraph, but once again this boils down to the same point of "something being misused in a bad way doesn't make the thing bad".
I know the rest of this post isn't actually about the split attraction model but it's interesting so
Second observation: a focus on personal identification is probably bad.
Is individual sexual identity a spectrum? Obviously, yes. Is individual gender identity a spectrum? Obviously, yes. And people should have freedom to personally identify as whatever they want. It does not follow from this that we should conceive of gender or sexuality in this way. Gender is distinct from gender identity. Gender refers to the set of social expectations, performances, and punishments that identify you as “man” or “woman”. Most crucially, it is a power relationship, where man dominates woman. Gender identity is distinct from this. Noone, when they encounter you, knows your gender identity. They can make inferences to decide how they treat you, sure. But that is in reference to the overarching categories of man or woman. This is the reason that non-binary identities are not a coherent political category. They are purely a set of individual identities. This is why the assertion that they are “a spectrum” is meaningless. Obviously they are, each is a manifestation of personal identity, but tt is only by comparison to capital G Gender that individuals are judged or punished for their unique expression of their gender identity.
The same is true of sexuality. The analogue of capital G Gender here are straight and gay. Society draws no broad distinction. This is the reason that the vast majority of discrimination allegedly perpetrated against various sexualities is better categorised as (misplaced but equally harmful) homophobia or misogyny.
Agreed.
Third (and, thankfully, final) observation: identity is not absolute
This should be obvious by this point. We are often not very introspective, and social forces conspire to prevent us from being so. We should not take a set of terms we have decided fit at a particular point and decide they fit us. I think some of these terms are particularly dangerous. Many young people who identify as asexual or aromantic or heteroromantic or quiroromantic are actually facing a combination of homophobia and internalised homophobia. This does not change the fact that there are many people who identify as these terms. Many people who identify as asexual or aromantic etc are actually misattributing personal trauma as a facet of their identity. They should receive help. This does not mean they are not “valid”, nor does it mean they are necessarily wrong in how they are identifying. Nor does this observation take anything away from those who are, in fact, asexual or aromantic. The fact that many people in these communities find these observations offensive or troubling is deeply worrying to me. Really, they should be the people who care most about these cases.
100% Agreed. This is a good paragraph.
EDIT: Having discussed this with Pokepride's resident aro legend, I have to say that the use of "Many people" seems to possibly be overexaggerating the scope of this issue, but the value of such a term can be subjective. Also focusing this on just young people isn't really fair as it can apply to people of any age range
You’re valid, identify how you want. But also think about it. Unless you’re heteroromantic homosexual, in which case I love you and I think you need to get help.
Love,
Crux
lol
Back to modern day.
Asexuals and aromantics are not inherently LGBT. If you are LGBT and asexual or aromantic, then you are LGBT because you satisfy those criteria independent of your asexuality. If you assume the existence of the split attraction model that allows for such distinctions, then you also acknowledge that it is possible for cishets to be asexuals. It is not enough to say that you are asexual or aromantic as your primary method of identification in LGBT spaces. If you respond that “actually it’s all about queerness and differentiation from cishet norms” or something to that effect, that is insufficient. Being chaste is, in nearly all societies, the expected norm and it is only recently, as a result of the LGBT and feminist movements that that has started to shift.
Correct, they're LGBTQ+. Next.
Regardless, this response clearly makes no sense. The point is that chasteness (which is not merely historical but still reified (how do you have a concept of slut shaming being the major response to female sexuality or a concept of gay men being sluts in the absence of that being the norm)) in the absence of formalised relationships, i.e. asexual relationships (especially given the claim by most asexuals that they experience relationship discrimination both interpersonally and politically), is still treated as important. The fact that heterosexual relationships after ratification are then considered legitimate is distinct from the treatment of any other kind of relationship.
Being chaste until a relationship is not the same as being asexual in the slightest due to societal (especially religious) expectations to find a sexual partner. Next.
But in terms of letting communities decide their own norms, there is legitimate disagreement about what counts as LGBT within the community. This is one of the more active debates. Why prioritise asexuals?
We don't have to prioritise anyone if we just stop having this never-ending debate and get on with useful things that actually make a difference, just my opinion
In terms of prioritising acceptance, there is no real reason to do so. Gatekeeping is necessary to create a coherent movement. For instance, some have claimed that people with kinks are inherently queer because they deviate from the dominant norms of sexuality. This would include cishet men who like to choke their girlfriends. Others have claimed that they are sapiosexual and thus queer. But this is ableist and racist. We should only include those who actually conform to and benefit the movement in their inclusion. I am not saying that these are equivalent to asexuals and aromantics, just that the logic behind deciding who is and who isn't inherently LGBT is the same. Asexuals and aromantics do not inherently make the cut.
I don't really get this, or why a group should have to benefit the movement, or how groups
would benefit the movement other than by having lots of people in them. I would genuinely appreciate elaboration.
If I wasn't clear enough about anything in here let me know, there's a huge amount of text here and I can be quite scatterbrained
